Save Article

Cambodia's Quest for Justice

Updated Feb. 14, 2002 12:01 a.m. ET

It came as a shock when the United Nations stood up to Cambodian strongman Hun Sen and announced last Friday that it was pulling out of negotiations with his government over how to hold an internationally recognized trial of former Khmer Rouge leaders. But it was even more shocking that the governments of America, France and other countries then chose to reward the international body's unusual display of backbone by lobbying for its diplomats to go crawling back to the table. The pressure for concessions would have been better directed at Hun Sen, who has sabotaged the trial at every opportunity, finally driving the U.N. to this last-ditch effort to call his bluff. Once again, Hun Sen's skill as a political tactician must be acknowledged, but it should not be rewarded.

Everyone pays lip service to the idea of bringing to justice the men most responsible for murdering and starving one quarter of Cambodia's population from 1975-79. But Hun Sen wants to keep the trial strictly under his own control, for several reasons. As the civil war gradually came to end during the 1990s, he promised amnesty to some of the top leaders of the Khmer Rouge in return for them coming over to the government side. These commanders still retain the loyalty of some former troops, and they bolster Hun Sen's own power as long as he serves as their protector. Moreover, there is the possibility that if prosecutors were given a wide ambit for hearing evidence, they might uncover something embarrassing to the many officials in the government who, like Hun Sen, were once members of the Khmer Rouge.

Another reason the Cambodian government opposes a real trial of the Khmer Rouge is China. Beijing was the biggest international supporter of the Maoist Khmer Rouge, and even reportedly offered "technical" assistance in the Pol Pot regime's most notorious death camp, Tuol Sleng. In addition to not wanting this dirty laundry aired in public, Beijing has long opposed international trials on the grounds they constitute "interference" in the "internal affairs" of sovereign nations, an understandable stance given the fact that China's record of atrocities in places like Tibet and Xinjiang wouldn't stand up well to scrutiny. Beijing has plenty of influence in Phnom Penh since it is one of the bigger donors to the regime, especially of military aid and funds that aren't tied to specific projects.

Unless more pressure is applied to Hun Sen, he will likely orchestrate a show trial of the Khmer Rouge military leader Ta Mok, known as "the butcher," and Kaing Kek Ieu, the head of Tuol Sleng, and then declare the matter of culpability for 1.7 million deaths closed. Other Khmer Rouge leaders who were intimately involved in formulating the economic and political policies which led to those deaths, such as Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea, will continue to live out their lives in comfort. Of the latter two, Hun Sen said in 1998, "If we bring them to trial, it will not benefit the nation, it will only mean a return to civil war. We should dig a hole and bury the past and look toward the future."

It's highly unlikely that the arrest of the former Khmer Rouge leaders would reignite the civil war. Allowing these men to walk the streets of Phnom Penh is an affront to the overwhelming majority of Cambodians who lost family members to the Khmer Rouge genocide, and a setback to the effort to deter future mass murderers. Not every crime against humanity demands international involvement to set up a tribunal, but for a country like Cambodia which hasn't yet established a judiciary protected from political pressures but ultimately accountable to its people, it remains the best option.

That's why for the past four years Cambodians have pinned their hopes for bringing the killers to justice on the U.N. They are understandably disappointed at the present outcome. But their anger should be channeled at its correct target. Just last year the government promulgated legislation on trying the Khmer Rouge which provided Hun Sen with the loopholes he needed to avoid trying many leaders. He has since used the law as an excuse for defying the U.N., claiming it is demanding concessions he cannot give according to Cambodian law.

If Cambodians don't like this, they have a chance to choose a new government in general elections next year, and it wouldn't be surprising if U.N. involvement in the Khmer Rouge trials becomes a major campaign issue. In the end, the U.N. has done about all it can do at the negotiating table; now the decision of whether to accept international standards of justice is up to Hun Sen. Perhaps donor countries and Cambodians will let him know their preferences, but in the meantime the U.N. deserves some applause for having the courage to present the choice in terms everyone can understand.